The Intrinsic Honesty of Atheism

[Dānu]

With all due respect, we see a lot more stories about Christians lying than atheists lying. The Catholic church's coverups are legion. Admittedly this is partly due to atheists being invisible, but if you're going to defend Christians as being honest and atheists dishonest, you need to present some real-world data, not all this anecdotal and philosophical shit.

[SteveII]

With all due respect, we see a lot more stories about Christians lying than atheists lying.  The Catholic church's coverups are legion.  Admittedly this is partly due to atheists being invisible, but if you're going to defend Christians as being honest and atheists dishonest, you need to present some real-world data, not all this anecdotal and philosophical shit.

You're conflating being dishonest epistemologically (the subject of the OP) with being dishonest in the course of one's dealings with others. Why isn't there a shrug emoji?

[Dānu]

With all due respect, we see a lot more stories about Christians lying than atheists lying.  The Catholic church's coverups are legion.  Admittedly this is partly due to atheists being invisible, but if you're going to defend Christians as being honest and atheists dishonest, you need to present some real-world data, not all this anecdotal and philosophical shit.

You're conflating being dishonest epistemologically (the subject of the OP) with being dishonest in the course of one's dealings with others. Why isn't there a shrug emoji?

Fair enough.

[pattylt]

[Huggy Bear]

Let's not play games, y'all make claims all the time with zero evidence, you're in the same boat with the thiests.

If you're admitting atheist ideology is faith based, then were in agreement.

[Huggy Bear]

Let's not play games, y'all make claims all the time with zero evidence, you're in the same boat with the thiests.

Here is my full quote:

This is my favorite argument for why God doesn't exist:

Science has shown that consciousness is brain-dependent.  All sorts of studies and observations support this: dementia, brain injuries, localization of functions, the effects of drugs, how consciousness changes with brain development, sleep and dreaming, and so on.

That means that when the brain dies, consciousness disappears.  So there is no afterlife.

Without a brain, there is no consciousness.  Therefore an immaterial God with consciousness cannot exist.

First of all, I presented this as an argument rather than a belief.  I consider that it has a very high probability of being true.

Second, I refer to all sorts of evidence, well-studied by scientists, showing that consciousness is brain-dependent.  Consciousness disappears without certain specific combinations of brain structures, brain activation, and brain chemistry.  We can all verify this in our own experiences when we sleep deeply.

Third, this information is worth much more than an elephant-load of speculation, folklore, or mythology about disembodied consciousness of any variety.

So at least many theists are dishonest.  You can see this again and again in how they try to argue their own points by excluding relevant information.

*emphasis mine*
What you presented was a conclusion, when I asked you to present peer-reviewed research to back up your claim of "all sorts of evidence, well-studied by scientists, showing that consciousness is brain-dependent" you couldn't do it, how you got to that conclusion is your OPINION, which is a BELIEF.

[epronovost]

*emphasis mine*
What you presented was a conclusion, when I asked you to present peer-reviewed research to back up your claim of "all sorts of evidence, well-studied by scientists, showing that consciousness is brain-dependent" you couldn't do it, how you got to that conclusion is your OPINION, which is a BELIEF.

Just a quick question. If I smash your head with a rock and you lose a large stretch of your memory, a significant amount of coordination and the capacity to regulate your emotions. All of these things result in a drastic and immediate change in your personality and sense of self. Did I have an effect on your consciousness?

PS: similar things have been observed numerous time in medicine.

[Huggy Bear]

...Interesting, I've noticed when science conflicts with your
atheist beliefs, you tend to reject it out of hand, it's quite
amazing to watch atheist's scramble and attempt to discredit
peer reviewed research when it conflicts with atheist belief.

Firstly—and unlike theism—atheists support no "beliefs" as
part of atheism.  Theists have an entire shopping list of beliefs.  
Faith itself is defined as "belief without evidence".

I'm guessing you don't have any in-depth comprehension of what
atheism really means.  Which is a common and confounding
problem for numerous theists.

Can you give us a couple of examples of what you've seen when
atheists "scramble" to discredit peer-reviewed science?

I've asked other theists here to prove that unicorns do not exist.
Can you answer that challenge, or do you think there's a possibility
they do?

*emphasis mine*

Look no further than yourself...

Did you even bother to look?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843550/

Your cited report is of no value in any argument for NDEs.

Although it was published in The National Library of Medicine,  
they say it "provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in
an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement
with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health".

*emphasis mine*

You yourself acknowledge that the information provided adheres to SCIENTIFIC standards:

scientific: conducted in the manner of science or according to results of investigation by science : practicing or using thorough or systematic methods

Yet you posted that disclaimer as if it discredits the peer reviewed article.

[Huggy Bear]

*emphasis mine*
What you presented was a conclusion, when I asked you to present peer-reviewed research to back up your claim of "all sorts of evidence, well-studied by scientists, showing that consciousness is brain-dependent" you couldn't do it, how you got to that conclusion is your OPINION, which is a BELIEF.

Just a quick question. If I smash your head with a rock and you lose a large stretch of your memory, a significant amount of coordination and the capacity to regulate your emotions. All of these things result in a drastic and immediate change in your personality and sense of self. Did I have an effect on your consciousness?

PS: similar things have been observed numerous time in medicine.

Simple answer, No.

A sleeping person is unconscious, but if a sleeping person dreams and remembers the dream, that proves the person's consciousness existed somewhere, or else they would have no memory, a lucid dream is someone who are fully aware they are dreaming and can actively influence what happens in the dream, fully conscious, yet not awake. If consciousness is brain dependent then a person who is fully conscious should be awake.

[Huggy Bear]

Firstly—and unlike theism—atheists support no "beliefs" as
part of atheism.  Theists have an entire shopping list of beliefs.  
Faith itself is defined as "belief without evidence".

I'm guessing you don't have any in-depth comprehension of what
atheism really means.  Which is a common and confounding
problem for numerous theists.

Can you give us a couple of examples of what you've seen when
atheists "scramble" to discredit peer-reviewed science?

I've asked other theists here to prove that unicorns do not exist.
Can you answer that challenge, or do you think there's a possibility
they do?

*emphasis mine*

Look no further than yourself...

Your cited report is of no value in any argument for NDEs.

Although it was published in The National Library of Medicine,  
they say it "provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in
an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement
with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health".

*emphasis mine*

You yourself acknowledge that the information provided adheres to SCIENTIFIC standards:

scientific: conducted in the manner of science or according to results of investigation by science : practicing or using thorough or systematic methods

Yet you posted that disclaimer as if it discredits the peer reviewed article.

Since you asked for a couple of examples, here's another one.

I read the link you provided.  It was not peer reviewed nor was there any real evidence they were dead and came back to life.   However scientists have studied the effects of unconsciousness under controlled circumstances which result in NDE's and OBE's

*emphasis mine*

So were just going to blatantly lie?





So are you going to address this, or have you thrown in the towel?

This is the response. Keep in mind were talking about a peer reviewed article, either you accept peer reviewed research or you don't, you're the ones that set the criteria for acceptable evidence, not me.

All three of these people are psychologists, not neursurgeons and they are not using scientific methods AT ALL.  All three of them have started with the conclusion first and then shove every anecdotal story they hear into their pre concieved conclusion.  This is not how science works.  The peer reviewed by these three people is  an exceptionally low quality paper. 

From the U of Virginia...

Ian Stevenson founded the Division of Perceptual Studies in 1967 to study cases of claimed reincarnation using scientific methodology to investigate cases.

From Wikipedia:

 Stevenson became known for his research into cases he considered suggestive of reincarnation – the idea that emotions, memories, and even physical bodily features can be passed on from one incarnation to another.[2] In the course of his forty years doing international fieldwork, he researched three thousand cases of children who claimed to remember past lives.[3][4][5] His position was that certain phobias, philias, unusual abilities and illnesses could not be fully explained by genetics or the environment. He believed that, in addition to genetics and the environment, reincarnation might possibly provide a third, contributing factor.

There is no scientific methodology in that paper.  None. It's laughable that you're or anyone would use this paper as evidence of reincarnation or an afterlife.   Real scientists set out to DISPROVE a claim through a gauntlet of unbiased testing, these three psychologists have done the complete opposite.  

From Emily William Kelly's website. She did her thesis on Frederic Myers who was a Victorian poet who believed in psychic mediums, ghosts, clairvoyance and ESP.  He founded the Society for Psychical Research.  "Myers' work on psychical research and his ideas about a "subliminal self" were influential in his time, but have not been accepted by the scientific community."  This is they guy who influenced  Kelly's ideas.

 For her PhD thesis, Kelly examined his work on experimental and spontaneous phenomena, notably apparitions, automatisms and mediumship

All three of these psychologists are crackpots.   

You're doing the same thing, starting with the conclusion first and then using confirmation bias to make your conclusion work.   Danu has this pointed out numerous times but you ignore it.

[airportkid]

If I smash your head with a rock and you lose a large stretch of your memory, a significant amount of coordination and the capacity to regulate your emotions. All of these things result in a drastic and immediate change in your personality and sense of self. Did I have an effect on your consciousness?

Simple answer, No.

There's a tidy irony in the possibility that if Huggy suffered the same accident as Mr. Gage, 19th century railroad foreman, it might turn him atheist. 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Delusional people do not think they are delusional.  They think we are.

It is significant that virtually every believer believes it possible to believe incorrectly, and believes there are many others who DO believe incorrectly, but NO believer believes there's even a possibility THEY believe incorrectly.  It's the same dynamic that has 95% of drivers believing they're above average at driving.  There are no limits to delusion - you could say it's one of humanity's most defining characteristics.

"Have you ever noticed how everyone who drives faster than you is a maniac, and everyone who drives slower than you is an asshole?" -- George Carlin

[Huggy Bear]

If I smash your head with a rock and you lose a large stretch of your memory, a significant amount of coordination and the capacity to regulate your emotions. All of these things result in a drastic and immediate change in your personality and sense of self. Did I have an effect on your consciousness?

Simple answer, No.

There's a tidy irony in the possibility that if Huggy suffered the same accident as Mr. Gage, 19th century railroad foreman, it might turn him atheist. 

I guess this explains atheism...

[airportkid]

"Have you ever noticed how everyone who drives faster than you is a maniac, and everyone who drives slower than you is an asshole?" -- George Carlin

No one drives slower than me, and they haven't got any right to be out on the same road as me, either.  Doesn't stop 'em though, except at stop signs, right in front of me.  Sometimes it takes me a whole five minutes to progress a trifling 25 miles. 

[brewerb]

*emphasis mine*
What you presented was a conclusion, when I asked you to present peer-reviewed research to back up your claim of "all sorts of evidence, well-studied by scientists, showing that consciousness is brain-dependent" you couldn't do it, how you got to that conclusion is your OPINION, which is a BELIEF.

I basically stated the same thing in th 'God Doesn't Exist' thread, post #77 and you failed to respond so I'll try again. Google medical requirements for determining brain death. Either you don't have the ability or refuse:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31424728/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5570697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8967425/


The list goes on and on and...........

[epronovost]

Simple answer, No.

Can I have the less simple answer since a simple no doesn't allow for any conversation?

A sleeping person is unconscious

That's not entirely accurate. A person who is a sleep is actually more accurately described as in a state of altered consciousness depending on what type of sleep they are experiencing. During the entire time a person is sleeping, no matter what level of sleep they are experiencing. There remains a steady and important level of brain activity. There is no moment in sleep when someone has a total loss of consciousness. You would have to be in a very specific and deep form of artificial form of coma to be unconscious and even then. Even deeply comatic people experience minute (often very hard to detect even with modern equipment) and sporadic levels of brain activity that some would describe as dream-like or as if sensing elements of their environment like sounds, voices, flashes of light or even smells though the accuracy of these sensations vary widely with some being hallucination while others seem fairly accurate.

but if a sleeping person dreams and remembers the dream, that proves the person's consciousness existed somewhere, or else they would have no memory, a lucid dream is someone who are fully aware they are dreaming and can actively influence what happens in the dream, fully conscious, yet not awake. If consciousness is brain dependent then a person who is fully conscious should be awake.

People don't dream in all stages of sleep. In fact, thanks to neuro-imaging, we can tell exactly when someone is dreaming and when they don't simply by observing brain activity. It does not follow that a person who is in control and cognizant of their dream should be awake if only because when a person is fully cognizant and in control of their dreams, they actually can make the choice to wake up fully whenever they want or remain in their sleep cycle in a voluntary manner. Note that a person who is dreaming very lucidly is not fully conscious by definition since they have a significantly dimmer awareness of their environment. You can't be considered fully conscious and at the same time lost deeply in your own thoughts with your movements shut down and your senses unemployed to their full capacity to scan your physical environment.

Why did you bring up sleep anyway? You don't seem like you know much about it in the first place. Sleep and dreams being brain dependent activities is very well known.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Why did you bring up sleep anyway? You don't seem like you know much about it in the first place. Sleep and dreams being brain dependent activities is very well known.

Because, Smuggy knows™ he's right©, and because of that, facts don't matter unless he can twist them to fit his agenda.

He's been trying to prove his gawd for years but has only managed to prove how ignorant he is.

[SYZ]

Firstly—and unlike theism—atheists support no "beliefs" as
part of atheism.  Theists have an entire shopping list of beliefs.  
Faith itself is defined as "belief without evidence".

I'm guessing you don't have any in-depth comprehension of what
atheism really means.  Which is a common and confounding
problem for numerous theists.

Can you give us a couple of examples of what you've seen when
atheists "scramble" to discredit peer-reviewed science?

I've asked other theists here to prove that unicorns do not exist.
Can you answer that challenge, or do you think there's a possibility
they do?

*emphasis mine*

Look no further than yourself...

Your cited report is of no value in any argument for NDEs.

Although it was published in The National Library of Medicine,  
they say it "provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in
an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement
with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health".

*emphasis mine*

You yourself acknowledge that the information provided adheres to SCIENTIFIC standards:

scientific: conducted in the manner of science or according to results of investigation by science : practicing or using thorough or systematic methods

Yet you posted that disclaimer as if it discredits the peer reviewed article.

The report you linked to does not refer to NDEs.  It's about
end-of-life dreams and visions—which are a totally different thing.

And 81.5% of the subjects were religious and believed in God. (!)

Further, it in no way shows a valid example of scientists "scrambling"
to "discredit" peer reviewed papers.  Finally, there is nothing wrong
with scientists rebutting their peers' reviews.  That's how and why
science works so effectively and so consistently.  And is something
religion lacks.

I'm guessing you don't fully understand the mechanics of peer reviews.

[Alan V]

*emphasis mine*
What you presented was a conclusion, when I asked you to present peer-reviewed research to back up your claim of "all sorts of evidence, well-studied by scientists, showing that consciousness is brain-dependent" you couldn't do it, how you got to that conclusion is your OPINION, which is a BELIEF.

Just a quick question. If I smash your head with a rock and you lose a large stretch of your memory, a significant amount of coordination and the capacity to regulate your emotions. All of these things result in a drastic and immediate change in your personality and sense of self. Did I have an effect on your consciousness?

PS: similar things have been observed numerous time in medicine.

If Huggy actually was interested, he could easily look up all the scientific studies he could ever want in the areas of research I mentioned to support the conclusion in question.  He obviously has access to a computer connected to the internet.

But as you say, it's all too obvious anyway, once you know how to interpret common experiences.  Theists deliberately blind themselves (and others) to the obvious.  So they really are dishonest.

[Dānu]

There's a tidy irony in the possibility that if Huggy suffered the same accident as Mr. Gage, 19th century railroad foreman, it might turn him atheist. 

I guess this explains atheism...

Are your fee fees hurt?

[Dānu]

Just a quick question. If I smash your head with a rock and you lose a large stretch of your memory, a significant amount of coordination and the capacity to regulate your emotions. All of these things result in a drastic and immediate change in your personality and sense of self. Did I have an effect on your consciousness?

PS: similar things have been observed numerous time in medicine.

If Huggy actually was interested, he could easily look up all the scientific studies he could ever want in the areas of research I mentioned to support the conclusion in question.  He obviously has access to a computer connected to the internet.

But as you say, it's all too obvious anyway, once you know how to interpret common experiences.  Theists deliberately blind themselves (and others) to the obvious.  So they really are dishonest.

I think you're overstating the case. It's well known that science hasn't solved the hard problem. Until they do, there's plenty of ways to skin that cat.

[Alan V]

If Huggy actually was interested, he could easily look up all the scientific studies he could ever want in the areas of research I mentioned to support the conclusion in question.  He obviously has access to a computer connected to the internet.

But as you say, it's all too obvious anyway, once you know how to interpret common experiences.  Theists deliberately blind themselves (and others) to the obvious.  So they really are dishonest.

I think you're overstating the case.  It's well known that science hasn't solved the hard problem.  Until they do, there's plenty of ways to skin that cat.

The hard problem is how the brain generates the mind, not whether.

[Alan V]

A person who is a sleep is actually more accurately described as in a state of altered consciousness depending on what type of sleep they are experiencing. During the entire time a person is sleeping, no matter what level of sleep they are experiencing. There remains a steady and important level of brain activity. There is no moment in sleep when someone has a total loss of consciousness. You would have to be in a very specific and deep form of artificial form of coma to be unconscious and even then.

This isn't really accurate.  Some level of brain activity does not equal some level of consciousness.  Judging by subjective reports, there has to be a certain threshold of brain activation for consciousness to exist.  Further, not all areas of the brain are substrates for consciousness.  Many work automatically, from the bottom up.

[Dānu]

I think you're overstating the case.  It's well known that science hasn't solved the hard problem.  Until they do, there's plenty of ways to skin that cat.

The hard problem is how the brain generates the mind, not whether.

If you don't know how then you don't know that.

[airportkid]

If you don't know how then you don't know that.

Doubtful.  Knowing that too much sun exposure causes burns is a connection understood for millenia without knowing how the sun makes all that heat.  There are uncountable other examples of our knowing the "that" without knowing the "how".  I'd even say MOST of what we know is more knowledge of that rather than how.